The Platform of the Reformists and the Platform of the Revolutionary Social-Democrats

Published:Sotsial-DemokratNo. 28–29, November 5 (18), 1912.

      Published according to the text inSotsial-Demokrat.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1975],

      Moscow,Volume 18,

      pages378-386.Translated:Stepan ApresyanTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Therevolutionary upswing in Russia made itself clearly
felt in the first half of 1912. The number of political strikers, as
calculated by the factory owners, reached 515,000 for five months. A
particularly important document, reprinted in full in No. 27 of the Central
Organ, namely, the May Day appeal of the St. Petersburg workers, provides
evidence as to the nature of the strikers’ slogans, their demands, the
political content of their demonstrations, meetings, etc.

Theslogans with which the St. Petersburg workers came forward in those
memorable days were not reformist but revolutionary Social-Democratic
slogans: a constituent assembly, an eight-hour working day, confiscation of
the land ed estates, the overthrow of the tsarist government, and a
democratic republic.

Therevolts and attempted revolts of soldiers and sailors—in
Turkestan, in the Baltic Fleet and on the Black Sea—supplied freshobjectiveevidence that after long years of rampant
counter-revolution and of a lull in the working-class movement, a new
revolutionary upswing had begun.

Thisupswing coincided with the period of the elections to the Fourth
Duma, when all parties and all political trendshadto present, in
one form or another, theirgeneralappraisal of the political
situation. Now, if we want to analyse our political tasks seriously, as the
tasks of the working class and not the pious wishes of little groups, and
if we want to test programmes and platforms in a Marxist way by comparing
them with the facts of the mass struggle and with the actions ofallthe classes of this society, wemust also test the various election platforms on the touch stone ofthis revolutionary upswingof the masses. For, as far as the
Social-Democrats are concerned, elections are not a special political
operation, not an attempt to win seats through all sorts of promises and
declarations, but merely a special occasion for advocating the basic
demands and the principles of the political world outlook of the
class-conscious proletariat.

Theprogrammes and platforms of all the government parties, from the
Black Hundreds to Guchkov, leave no room for doubt. They are plainly and
openly counter-revolutionary. It is common knowledge that these parties
lack a foothold of any real importance not only among the working class and
the peasantry, butevenamong wide sections of the
bourgeoisie. These sections have almost completely turned away from the
Octobrists.

Theprogrammes and platforms of the liberal bourgeois parties have been
published in part almost officially (the platform of the Moslem group) and
are partly known quite accurately through the “big” political press (the
platforms of the “Progressists” and of the Cadets). Theessenceof all these programmes and platforms has been inimitably expressed in the
declarations of the garrulous Cadet, Gredeskul, which were reprinted inRechand from there found their way into the Marxist press.

“Apublicdenial of the needfor a new revolution in Russia”
is how Gredeskul himself formulated his views
(cf.Sotsial-DemokratNo. 27, p. 3). It was he, too, who contrast
ed therealplatform of the liberals (with the Cadets at their
head) with that of the revolutionaries, saving that “what we need ismerelyquiet, persevering and confidentconstitutionalwork”.

Westress the words “real platform”, for in Russia, as in all
bourgeois countries, most platforms are merewindow dressing.

Thecrux of the matter is what was admitted (in a rare fit of
truthfulness) by Mr. Gredeskul. The liberal monarchist bourgeoisie isopposedto a new revolution and advocatesonlyconstitutional reforms.

TheSocial-Democrats consistently, and the bourgeois democrats
(Narodniks) hesitantly, uphold the “need” fora new revolution, and are carrying on propaganda in favour of such a
revolution. The upswing of themassstrugglehas
begun. The revolutionary Social-Democrats are trying to extend and
strengthen it, helping it develop to a still higher plane, to the stage ofrevolution. The reformists, however, regard the upswing as a mere
“revival”; their policy is a policy aimed at obtaining constitutional
concessions, constitutional reforms. It follows that the bourgeoisie and
proletariat have entered, at this “stage” of Russian history as well,
into a struggle for influence over the “people”, over the masses. No one
can foretell the outcome of this struggle, but neither can anyone entertain
any doubts as to the position which the R.S.D.L.P. must occupy inthisstruggle.

Itis in this way, and only in this way, that one can start to appraise
the election platform of thePartyand the election platform
issued the other day by the “Organising Committee” elected by the
liquidationist conference.

Theelection platform of the Party, published by the Central Committee
after the January Conference, was draft edbeforethe events of
April and May. These eventsprovedit correct. A single theme runs
through the whole platform—criticism of constitutional reforms inpresent-dayRussia as hopeless and utopian, and the propaganda of
revolution. The slogans of the platform have been framedpreciselyin such a way as to express the revolutionary tasks with perfect clarity
and make it absolutely impossible to mistake them for promises of
constitutional reforms. The platform of the Party represents a directappealof the revolutionary Social-Democrats tohundreds of
thousandsof political strikers, to those who are in the front ranks
of the millions of the muzhik armed forces, to whom itexplainsthe tasks of an uprising. A revolutionary party could not even dream of a
better test for its platform, of a better confirmation of it by experience,
than this direct response to the explanations of the Party—the May
strikes and the attempted military revolts in June and July.

Lookat the platform of the liquidators. Its liquidationist essence is
artfully concealed by Trotsky’s revolutionary phrases. This camouflage may
sometimes blind na\"ive and altogether inexperienced people, and may even
appear tobe “reconciliation” between the liquidators and the Party. But the most
cursory examination will rapidly dissipate this self-deception.

Theplatform of the liquidators was writtenafterthe May
strikes and the attempted revolts in the summer. And in seeking a real
practical answer to the question of the essence of this platform, the first
thing we ask is:howdoes it appraise those strikes and those
attempts?

“Theeconomic upswing...”, “...by the growth of its strike movement,
the proletariat has signalled the coming new social upswing...”, “...the
powerful April movement of the proletariat demanding freedom of
association”—that isallthe liquidators’ platform says about
the April and May strikes.

Butthis is indeed an untruth! It is a crying distortion of the issue!
Themainthing is omitted here, namely, therevolutionarycharacter of the political strike, which is not aimed at winning a
constitutional reform, but atover throwingthe government, i.e.,
at revolution.

Howcould such an untruth come to be written in an illegal,
revolutionary leaflet full of “red” phrases? Ithadto be,
becausesuchis theviewof the liberals and the
liquidators. They see in strikes what they wish to see—a struggle for
constitutional reforms. They do not see what they do not wish to see,
namely, a revolutionary upswing. We liberals want to fight for reform, but
not for revolution—there you have thetruthof the class
position that found expression in theuntruthof the liquidators.

Withregard to the attempted revolts we read, “...the soldiers in the
barracks are driven by violence, humiliation and starvation tooutbursts of desperate protest, then they are suppressed with
bullets, the rope”, etc.

Thisis a liberal appraisal. We revolutionary Social-Democrats regard
the attempted revolts as thebeginning of an uprising of the
masses, even if an unsuccessful, untimely, incorrect beginning. And we
know that themasses learnhow to make a successful uprising only
from the experience of unsuccessful ones, just as the Russian workers, by a
series of unsuccessful, and sometimes particularly unsuccessful, political
strikes in 1901–04 learned to organise the successful strike of
October 1905. We say that the workersand peasants who are most downtrodden by the barrackshave begunto rise in revolt. Hence the plain and obvious conclusion: we mustexplainto them how and for what purpose they should prepare for asuccessfuluprising.

Theliberals take a different view. The soldiersare“driven” to “outbursts ofdesperateprotest”, they say. To a
liberal, an insurgent soldier is not the subject of the revolution, not the
forerunner of the masses rising in revolt, but anobjectof
governmental evil (“driven to desperation”), serving to demonstrate that
evil.

Seehow bad our government is—itdrivesthe soldiers todesperationand then suppresses them with bullets, says the
liberal (the inference being: if we liberals were in power, there would be
no soldiers’ mutinies).

Seehow deeply and widely revolutionary energy is maturing among the
masses—says the Social-Democrat—even the soldiers and sailors who are
downtrodden by barrack drill are beginning to rise in revolt, and by rising
badly they teach how to rise successfully.

Asyou see, the liquidators have “interpreted” (in the
senatorial sense of the word interpret) the revolutionary upsurge in Russia
during the spring and the summer.

Afterwhich they “interpreted” the programme of our Party.

TheProgramme of the R.S.D.L.P. says:

“TheR.S.D.L.P. sets itself theimmediatepolitical task of
   overthrowing the tsarist autocracy and replacing it by a democratic
   republic, whose constitutionwould ensure:
   (1) the sovereignty of the people” ... etc., and then comes a list of
   “liberties” and “rights”.

“TheR.S.D.L.P. sets itself theimmediatepolitical task of
   overthrowing the tsarist autocracy and replacing it by a democratic
   republic, whose constitutionwould ensure:
   (1) the sovereignty of the people” ... etc., and then comes a list of
   “liberties” and “rights”.

Onewould think that this could not be misunderstood; the “immediate”
task is the overthrow of the autocracy and its replacement by a republic,
which wouldensureliberties.

Theliquidators have revised all this.

Intheir platform we read: “The Social-Democrats call on
   the people to fight for a democratic republic....“Strivingfor this aim, which the people will be able toachieve only as a result of revolution, the Social-Democratsin the present election campaign[listen to this!] call on the
   working masses to rally to the followingcurrentdemands:
   (1) universal, etc., suffrage ...in the elections to the Duma”,
   etc.

Intheir platform we read: “The Social-Democrats call on
   the people to fight for a democratic republic....

“Strivingfor this aim, which the people will be able toachieve only as a result of revolution, the Social-Democratsin the present election campaign[listen to this!] call on the
   working masses to rally to the followingcurrentdemands:
   (1) universal, etc., suffrage ...in the elections to the Duma”,
   etc.

Mr.Peshekhonov,a Socialist-Revolutionary liquidator, wrote in the
autumn of 1906, when he was founding an “open party” (and almost
succeeded in founding it, but the police stepped in and put him in quod!),
that the republic was a“remoteprospect”, that “the question
of a republic requires extreme caution”, that theimmediatedemands now were reforms.

Butthe Socialist-Revolutionary liquidator was na\"ive, simple, clumsy
and blunt. Do the “European” opportunists ever act in that way? No. They
are more cunning, more clever, more diplomatic.

Theydo not renounce the slogan of a republic—what a libel! They only
“interpret” it in a suitable fashion, being prompted by considerations
obvious to every philistine. It is a moot point whether there will be a
revolution or not, says the man in the street simply, and Trotsky repeats
it in a scholarly fashion inNasha Zarya(No. 5, p. 21). A
republic“onlyas a result of revolution”, but the
“current” issue “in the present election campaign” is
constitutional reforms!

Everythingwent off so smoothly: the republic is both recognised and
relegated to the distant future. Heaps of r-r-revolutionary words were
spoken, but in reality the demands put forward “in the present election
campaign” (the whole platform is written only for thispresent
campaign!) as “current are those for reforms.

Yes,it was certainly great “masters of diplomacy” who were present
at the liquidators’ conference. But what puny masters they are! While they
may delight the group diplomatists and mislead the simple-minded
“conciliators” the Marxists will talk to them in a different strain.

Thephilistine is satisfied with the undoubted, holy andemptytruth that it is impossible to say in advance whether there will be a
revolution or not. A Marxist is not satisfied with that; he says: our
propaganda and the propaganda of all worker Social-Democrats isone of
the factors determiningwhether there will be a revolution or
not. Hundreds of thousands of political strikers and the foremost men of
various units of the armed forces ask us, our Party, what they should
strive for, for the sake of what they should rise, what they should try to
achieve, whether they should expand the up-surge that has begun into a revolution, or whether they should direct it
towards a struggle for reforms.

Therevolutionary Social-Democrats have given their answer to these
questions, which are more interesting and important than the
philistine-Trotskyist attitude of uncertainty: will there be a revolution
or not, who can tell?

Ouranswer is—criticism of the utopia of constitutional reforms,
explanation of the futility of the hopes placed in them, the utmost
all-round promotion of therevolutionaryupsurge, utilisation of
the election campaignfor this purpose. Whether or not there will
be a revolution doesnotdepend on usalone. But we shall
doourwork, and this work will never be in vain. It will sow the
seeds of democracy and proletarian independence deep among the masses, and
these seeds willcertainlysprout and produce either a democratic
revolution tomorrow, or a socialist revolution the day after.

Those, however, who preach to themassestheir
vulgar, intellectualist. Bundist-Trotskyist scepticism—“we don’t know
whether there will be a revolution or not, but the ‘current’ issue
is reforms”—arealreadycorrupting the masses, preaching
liberal utopias to them.

Insteadofpermeatingthe election campaign with the spirit of
the present, real, “actual” political situation, in which half a
million workers are engaged in revolutionary strikes, and the foremost men
in the muzhik armed forces are firing on their aristocrat
officers—instead of this theydismissfrom their would-be
“European” (they are so European, so European, are our liquidators!)
“parliamentary” considerations this real situation (in which there is
very little of the “European”, but very much of the “Chinese”,that
is to say, of the democratic-revolutionary), and having dismissed it
by means of a few non-committal phrases, they declare the reformist
election campaign to be therealthing.

TheSocial-Democratic Party needs a platform for the elections to the
Fourth Duma in order once more to explain to the masses—in connection
with the elections, on the occasion of the elections,andin
debates on the elections—the need for, and the urgency and
inevitability of, the revolution.

They,the liquidators, need a platform “for” the elections,
i.e., a platform enabling them politely to dismiss considerationsabout a revolution as an uncertain eventuality and to declare the election
campaign for a list of constitutional reforms to be the “real” thing.

TheSocial-Democratic Party wants to use the elections in order again
to drive home to the masses the idea of the need for revolution, and the
fact of the revolutionary up swing which has begun. That is why the
Social-Democratic Party, in its platform, says briefly and plainly to those
voting in the electionsto the Fourth Duma:notconstitutional reforms, but a republic,notreformism, but
revolution.

Theliquidators are using the elections to the Fourth Duma to preach
constitutional reforms andweakenthe idea of revolution. It isforthis purpose and because of this that they depict soldiers’
revolts as “outbursts of desperate protest” to which soldiers are
“driven”, and not as thebeginningof a mass uprising which will
grow or subside according, among other things, to whether or notallthe Social-Democratic workers of Russia at once begin to
support it with all their might, with all their energy, with all their
enthusiasm.

Itis for this purpose that the May strikes have been “interpreted”
from being revolutionary into being reformist.

Itis for this purpose that the Party programme has been
“interpreted”, and instead of the “immediate” task of establishing a
republic that willensureliberties, it has been decreed to regard
ascurrentin the “present election campaign”—for the Fourth
Duma, don’t laugh!—the demand for various liberties.

Howmuch that is old Chinese there is in Russian life! What an amount
of old Chinese practices there is in our tsarism, and also in our
liquidators, who wish to fit the “ceremonials” of parliamentary struggle
and reformism into a setting which has the Purishkeviches and Treshchenkovs
on top and revolutionary attempts of the masses below! How much that is old
Chinese there is in these vain efforts of intellectuals to defend
themselves against the Khvostovs and Makarovs by producing a letter of
recommendation from MacDonald and Jaurès, from Bissolati and
Bernstein, from Kolb and Frank!

Thediplomatic “reconciliation” of liquidationist views with those of
the Party that was staged by Trotsky at theliquidationist conference does not in reality “reconcile” anything at
all. It does not remove the greatest political fact, which determines the
entire social and political situation in present-day Russia. That fact is
the struggle between the reformist and the revolutionary Social-Democratic
platforms; it is the pronouncement of the bourgeoisie, as represented by
its liberal party leaders, against the need for a new revolution in Russia
and in favour of purely constitutional “work”, in opposition to the
revolutionary strike of hundreds of thousands of proletarians, which is a
call to the masses to begin a real struggle for freedom.

Tomake one bow to the reformists and another to the revolutionary
Social-Democrats does not do away with this objective political fact, does
not weaken its force and weight in the slightest degree. Good intentions to
smooth over differences arising from this fact—even assuming that these
intentions are indeed perfectly “good” and sincere—are powerless to
alter the irreconcilably hostile political tendencies arising from the
entire counter-revolutionary situation.

Theproletariat has risen with its revolutionary Social-Democratic
banner, and on the eve of the Fourth, Black Hundred, Duma, It will not
lower it before the liberals, will not furl it to please the reformists,
will not consent to blunt or tone down its platform for reasons of group
diplomacy.

Theplatform of revolutionary Social-Democracy versus the platform of
reformism—this was the watchword under which the May strikes took
place. Under it, too, the R.S.D.L.P. is entering the elections to a
landlord and priest Duma, and under it the Party will carry on its entire
work in that Duma and among the masses.